Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Has this one been posted?



Interesting.....

Apple did try clones before
the minute Apple becomes a threat to MS, the game is over. MS could always play their thrumph card...OFFICE.
If Mac doesn't have office it will be gone. I doubt it would be hard for MS to make sure OFFICE wouldn't run under OS X.
just my 2c

 

[chibianh]

The people who are complaining about their machines being obsolete in a year's time, I've got news for you. Your machine is obsolete NOW, was obsolete the moment you bought it! But only if you think the definition of obsolete if it's not the latest and greatest. In that case, ALL Macs up to the dual 2.7 G5 is obsolete.

As for as usefuleness, how is it any less useful to you a year from now than it is now? Will it all of a sudden stop working a year down the road? It will still run all the software it's running now, correct? Will it be any slower than it is now?

 

[dicklacara]

If you can run Windows on a InteliMac at near-native speeds, can someone please give me a good outline of why this won't just be OS/2 redux, e.g. a convenient upgrade path for former MacOS users to switch to Longhorn?

I don't know that you will be able to run Windows... rather, Wintel apps.

Then the decision is a choice between OSes -- & OS X will have an installed base of users already running... Longhorn will need to offer compelling reasons to switch.

 

[jrv3034]

More speed, more frequent updates. No more "your Mac is slower than my Alienware" comments.

Cool.

And to whoever said that the chip is the soul of the computer, I say the OS is the soul. The chip is more like the pituitary gland.

 

[whooleytoo]

The people who are complaining about their machines being obsolete in a year's time, I've got news for you. Your machine is obsolete NOW, was obsolete the moment you bought it! But only if you think the definition of obsolete if it's not the latest and greatest. In that case, ALL Macs up to the dual 2.7 G5 is obsolete.

Good point! It's our software that they've made obsolete, not our hardware!

 

[skellener]

People who lose in this transition no matter what...

Not always. Look at Stone Design. Started on NeXTSTEP on 68k machines. Used the NeXT libraries for making their app Create. NeXTSTEP became Openstep. Easy transition for Stone using the NeXT to Openstep tools. Now Stone can deploy to any Openstep system with a few clicks (x86, Sun, Dec). Apple buys NeXT. Openstep becomes Mac OS X for PPC. Yet again, Stone's transition is smooth. Create is the first app available on Mac OS X that is pure native Cocoa. The app gets great reviews and Stone now has more users than ever before. I will guarantee you Create will be out for x86 the day the first Mac with an Intel ship ships. In fact I wouldn't be suprised if Andrew Stone has it already compiled and ready to go now. So transitions CAN pay off. This is an app that has followed every single transition from NeXTSTEP on 68k to Mac OS X for Intel without a hitch. It can be done. Create has the largest amount of users now than it has ever had!

 

[chibianh]

More speed, more frequent updates. No more "your Mac is slower than my Alienware" comments.

Cool.

And to whoever said that the chip is the soul of the computer, I say the OS is the soul. The chip is more like the pituitary gland.

^^ I agree. More frequent updates isn't a bad thing. I mean, haven't we been complaining about the lack of updates or when there is an update, that it sucks? We won't have to worry about that anymore.

And if the chip is the soul of the computer, does that mean G3s, G4s, and G5s all have different souls? I have one of each and they all feel the same to me.

 

[shompa]

That is a very good point. A lot of the power management features that Apple has so tightly integrated into its OS only work so well because they are also tightly integrated with the hardware.

When I used to put my Windows PC to sleep, half the time it wouldn't wake up, and another quarter of the time it thought I meant I wanted to restart it.

I havent heard about anyone who has managed to put windows in sleep ala mac.
When I put my shuttle PC in sleep:The fans are still spinning!!!

 

[itsa]

So where will Apple be on this img next year?

 

[swissmann]

More speed, more frequent updates. No more "your Mac is slower than my Alienware" comments.

Cool.

And to whoever said that the chip is the soul of the computer, I say the OS is the soul. The chip is more like the pituitary gland.

The Mac may be slower than the Alienware - but now it depends a lot more on the software. Let's hope Apple and it's developers shine.

 

[shompa]

More speed, more frequent updates. No more "your Mac is slower than my Alienware" comments.

Cool.

And to whoever said that the chip is the soul of the computer, I say the OS is the soul. The chip is more like the pituitary gland.

Thats the main problem since X86 is slower than G5.

Jobs want a laptop chip. Thats why he moves to Intel, since IBM cant make a server/workstation class chip for them.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

What's your definition of 'obsolete'? How will a system bought today be 'obsolete' if it can still run all the current software?

Or are you one of those "silly people" that think a system is 'obsolete' as soon as something newer comes out?

well, lets be honest... Apple is leaving the PPC platform. Niether of us knows how long Apple or developers will support PPC. I wouldn't buy a 3k system from Apple as it looks right now... I would wait and see how things develop.
My guess is that we will see a significant drop in Mac sales

 

[army_guy]

Intel and AMD is SLOWER today than G5.

Intel and AMD is more expensive than G5.

This is not a move for us consumers, but for Apple to make more money selling software.
Apple IS the new Microsoft. They dont care about their customers best, but the companys best. They should care about their customers since that its we who give apple all their Money.

Back to the architecure.
Intel Xeon: 37 stages, 266mhz bus quad pumped. Sucky in dual operation,
AMD: 2.6 ghz. = good
G5 17 stages, 1.25ghz bus. Excellent in dual operation since each processor have its own channel.

Jobs it trying to sell us the Intel Myth.

F' him.

Thats a double no no AMD is faster than Intel and G5. G5 is a crippled Power series CPU thats it and it was meant for servers not workstations or laptops. Considering the performance of the Power series in all the applications that ive used its nothing special. A G5 powerbook was never going to happen unless Apple sacrificed weight and size, with dothan and yonah it becomes viable to produce a sleek, light and powerfull powerbook. As for the xeon its been dead for the last 18 months, allthough for media applications such as video its a good match to Opteron. Another reason Apple may of chosen Intel is that Intel chips perform best in doing repetative tasks such as audio/video encoding.

 

[chibianh]

Thats the main problem since X86 is slower than G5.

Jobs what a laptop chip. Thats why he moves to Intel, since IBM cant make a server/workstation class chip for them.

The current crop of x86 MAY be (or may be not, depends on what benchmarks you look at) slower than a dual 2.7 G5, I'm pretty sure next year's crop won't be. Who knows what's in store from Intel? The P4 is getting long in the tooth and isn't the greatest chip in the world. Most likely, Intel will have something based on the Pentium M, which is one hell of a processor.

 

[jimbobb24]

What transition to C#? C# is just one of the languages that work on the .NET Framework. Microsoft invented it and submitted it to a standards group. Now you can get C# compilers from other vendors. C# is wildly successful; I work for a company of about 100 that does nothing but develop custom C# web applications.

C# doesn't supplant anything. The .NET Framework is built so that programs written in different languages can work with each other. A VB programmer can use a C# library without even knowing it is a C# library.

There is a .NET Framework implementation for Linux and OS X; it's called Mono.

You can't write an operating system in C#, unless you want an operating system that runs on a framework in another operating system.

Sorry, I'm not knocking it. I was not being explicit for convenience sake. Could end up being very good for MS.

 

[PeterPaul]

People who lose in this transition no matter what:

1. Companies that invested the time to make 64 bit code

2. Companies that heavily optimized for AltiVec

3. MetroWorks - wow what a snub for a company that is helping people develop software for your platform

4. Scientific users of the G5 when it goes out. They will be buying PowerMacs until the last second they are made.

5. Apple. Lots of resources that were invested for 1 and 2 wasted, as well as the need to do a risky transition. Long-run may come out just fine.

People who do not lose but people seem to think they are losing:
1. People who buy a G5 in the next two years. Don't hesitate. Most the software will still have been optimized for your platform for several years. Possibly hesitate for laptops due to tech, but your software will still run great and your system will still be more optimized for sometime.

2. IBM. They gained by losing Apple and gaining consoles. No lost prestige for them. They just did not want to invest resources.

Pithy absolutes make for stimulating conversation, but that in itself ain't worth much.

Virtually every group of "people" you've listed both gain and lose in this transition, with some losing more and some gaining more. Nobody is an absolute winner or loser, unless they deliberately choose (or have chosen) to live and/or die with the PPC. That even applies to Metroworks.

Companies that invested heavily in PPC-specific code will gain by no longer having to invest in PPC-specific code.

I suspect that someone who says Apple "wasted" resources on 1 & 2 would also insist that someone buying a PPC today will be "wasting" their investment. Phooey!

 

[AoWolf]

In the end I think this is good news 3 years from now we will look back and say wow it wasn't as doom and gloom as we thought. I am looking forward to faster notebooks my self!

 

[eVolcre]

Wow- you managed to not only fail the assignment, but show that you didn't even understand it! Read his post and try again.

LeeKohler, Thanks - I was hoping somebody besides me would see where I was going with this, the point I was making and how easy I set it up for him to prove his FACTS. Hell, I accepted all his assumptions too. I even offered to bow out of this thread if he could complete his simple assigment. BUT, he came back swinging as usual and really proved to me that not only did he not do what I asked him to do (which was a very fair request) but that he had no idea of what I was asking and where I was going with it.

*sigh* I wasn't going to bring it up again since I really have given up on most of the people in this thread. But you brought it up and to be honest, the responses and comments this morning are more balanced and not like yesterdays childish antics.

Lets see if the Trucking Mac responds or even tries to look at the logic behind my theory. *hint* MacTruck, you don't have to do all the things I asked you to do. But consdering them would realize that you are wrong with the 5% number, you can't prove your FACTS and you will save yourself a lot of work by accepting that.

BUT, if you choose to go the distance and run a few of the numbers, i will do my part and present the opposing numbers and analysis which I could whip up in a couple of hours. But I'm not going to make the effort if you refuse to meet us halfway.

eV

 

[Spazmodius]

So where will Apple be on this img next year?

They'll just print the benchmarks of things that work better on Intel. Or maybe they'll just stop posting benchmarks, if AMD on Windows beats their numbers.

You gotta take such things with a grain of salt anyway. Benchmark results are always cherry-picked to make whoever is sharing them look the best.

 

[onlysublime]

My experience with Intel's "Centrino Technology" has left a bad taste in my mouth. Instead of making it compatable, they broke many things, all for the sake of marketing. Ever buy 24 laptops (all from IBM no less!), and have enough differences in what are supposed to be the same model/specs that you couldn't just install on one and use the OS image on all the others?

Duh. Buy the same laptop with the same features if you're so lazy to make one image. If you had the same model and had all the requisite licenses (since you're using one image), that image should've worked. WinXP, especially, tags the system. That way, someone can't buy one copy and install it on a gazillion machines. That could break images too.

Anyhow, if the systems only differ in memory, hard drive, and video, just update the drivers. If it's a totally different CPU and motherboard, yeah, get off your lazy butt...

 

[PeterPaul]

My definition of obsolete is what's happening right now. We KNOW that Apple will stop using the PowerPC very soon. I don't think this will be as simple as they say. Would you have bought a beige G3 if you knew you wouldn't be able to run new system software on it in a few years? No. And I won't buy a G5. I'll wait another year when they've switched processors.

Geez, take a chill pill. If you're in the minority of people who actually expect their computer to last 10 years, don't be surprised that you don't get much sympathy.

As others have pointed out, a G5 bought today will have no limitations in 3 years, and will still be eminently usable in 5. No significant software vendor in their right mind will ship an x86-only app in the next three years. One doesn't need a crystal ball to see that, only a few functioning brain cells.

 

[tyguy01234]

Value of PPC Macs

Generally I like the fact that in the past when I have upgraded my Apple computer I was able to turn around and sell my old computer on ebay or something for a pretty good price. This is because Apple computers hold their value very well. But now will the resell price of PPC apple's go down? Or maybe even possibly up because they are classics?

Any ideas?

Thank you,
TM

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

IT WILL NOT BE OBSOLETE!!!!!!!!

My Dual 1 Ghz Mac will be just fine in another two years (maybe a little slow by then). It will run software just fine. The only issue will be speed, not compatibility. But that is true with any computer. You eventually get to the point where it's just not fast enough. PPC and Intel is moot. Nothing is going to be obsolete anymore than if Apple announced a G6 in the next two years. You just don't get it.

You might be right... However, I do think that many more people than him is thinking just like that (myself included). It is a lot of money to cough up, given the uncertainty. ok, universal binaries could pave the road.
But I still think that most people will wait and see what is going to happen...
The intel chip has the Hollywood approved DRM. I could be that if you buy a PPC Mac today you wont be able to buy movies from the likely future apple video store... who knows. That was just one thing...
I dont think it is a bad idea to wait and see if you can, assuming money is an issue, which is for most people.

 

[notjustjay]

My guess is that we will see a significant drop in Mac sales

If that is accompanied by a significant drop in Mac prices to compensate, I'd happily buy up a G5 system to tide me over. I won't be buying a rev. A IntelMac, so it'll be 2-3 years or longer before I could buy a new machine anyway.

 

[eVolcre]

When has Windows sucking ever stopped 95% of the people out there from buying it?

Was there ever a viable alternative?